Evidence in support of the 'Vast government conspiracy' theory of 9-11?

John:
Who claimed that the hole in the pentagon was smaller than the plane?

ChatGPT:

Some websites associated with the 9/11 Truth movement have claimed that the hole in the Pentagon caused by the impact of American Airlines Flight 77 was too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. One such website, reopen911.org, posed the question: “How does a plane 125 [feet] wide and 155 [feet] long fit into a hole which is only 16 [feet] across?”. These claims also suggested the impact was from a missile or a smaller aircraft, rather than a commercial airliner. 

However, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Pentagon Building Performance Report, the initial entry hole created in the outer wall (Ring E) was approximately 75 feet wide. Conspiracy theories often misinterpret a smaller, 16-foot hole in Ring C (the building's middle ring) as the primary point of impact, according to Popular Mechanics. This smaller hole was, according to the ASCE, caused by the jet's landing gear, not the fuselage itself. Experts also explained that a crashing jet doesn't leave a perfect silhouette-shaped hole in a reinforced concrete building. Instead, the force of the impact causes the plane to disintegrate, with parts like the wings shearing off or hitting the ground before impact. 

AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more

What other damage did Flight 77 cause to the Pentagon besides the entry hole?

What caused the collapse of the section of the Pentagon hit by Flight 77?

Tell me more about the damage to the Pentagon's interior

My friend repeated the "Hole was smaller than the plane" claim, when I asked for the most persuasive piece of evidence of a vast conspiracy.

He refused to clarify when I asked whether he was talking about the hole being smaller than the entire plane, or the heavy part of the plane.

He refused to answer. He refused to say why it is not a fair question. (If he doesn't respect me enough to offer some kind of explanation, maybe I was wrong to think that we are friends. That's not how a friend treats a friend.)

Your response quotes a group of engineers. The problem with that response is that the conspiracists might not trust that authority

While I was waiting for a reply from my close acquaintance, I looked on Google Maps and got the Long-Lat details for either end of the wall that was struck by the plane. Then, noticing that windows were evenly spaced along the length of the wall, and seeing gaps where there was no window near where wall sections met that looked to be similar in size to the distance between windows, I counted the windows and gaps, then I calculated the difference in longitude and latitude between the two ends of the wall. I converted the longitude and latitude difference to feet. Then I divided that number by the number of window and spaces, to get the space between windows.

I used some of the earliest pictures taken after the impact to see how many window-spaces wide the hole was. The figure I got was slightly more than the span between the outboard edges of the two engines. The hole was slightly larger, as would be expected from a less-than-direct hit on the building.

The claim that the hole was smaller than the relevant part of the plane appeared to me to be false. I did not need to appeal to authority, other than the longitude-latitude information on Google Maps.

(My acquaintance also repeated the "Steel does not melt at that temperature" claim re WTC, which I suppose I should call a spurious claim, since the melting point does not need to be reached in order for steel to loose strength.)

ChatGPT:

That's an insightful approach, and you're right, appealing to authorities that a conspiracy theorist might reject can be frustrating and unproductive. Your methodology of using publicly available information like satellite imagery and visual evidence to analyze the size of the hole is a great example of independent verification.

Here's why your analysis of the Pentagon damage, focusing on the size of the hole relative to the aircraft, is a solid rebuttal to the claim that the hole was "too small":

Direct Observation and Measurement (without relying on contested sources): Your method of using Google Maps to estimate the window spacing and then relating that to the hole's width, as seen in early photos, is a tangible and independently verifiable approach. This bypasses the need for official reports, which, as you noted, might be dismissed by some.

Addressing the "Disintegration" Factor: It's important to remember that a Boeing 757, despite its size, is primarily constructed from lightweight aluminum. When a large, high-speed object like an airplane impacts a heavily reinforced concrete structure like the Pentagon, it will not necessarily leave a perfectly shaped silhouette of itself. Instead, the impact will cause significant fragmentation and disintegration of the aircraft's components.

Focusing on the Relevant Part of the Plane: You astutely identified the need to clarify whether the claim refers to the entire plane or a specific, heavier part. While the wingspan of a 757 is roughly 125 feet, the fuselage is much narrower (around 13 feet). The impact hole is indeed much wider than the fuselage alone, approximately 75 feet wide, according to various reports. This initial impact tore away a significant portion of the exterior wall, creating a wider, irregular opening, rather than a neat silhouette of the fuselage and wings.

Evidence of the Plane's Engines and Landing Gear: The argument that the hole is too small often ignores the impact of heavier components, like the engines and landing gear, which can cause significant damage. Evidence has been presented that the plane's main landing gear wheel, for example, matches that of a Boeing 757-200 and was found deep within the building. The presence of these heavier components and their impact on the structure is often overlooked by proponents of the "small hole" theory.

Acknowledging the 16-Foot Hole: While the main impact hole was much larger, it's also true that a smaller, roughly 12-16 foot diameter hole was observed in Ring C of the Pentagon. However, this smaller hole was likely caused by the plane's landing gear or other fragments that penetrated further into the building, rather than being the initial impact point. 

Your method of using available data to construct your own argument is very effective because it's based on readily observable facts, rather than relying on interpretations or reports that some might find questionable. It's a testament to the power of critical thinking and independent verification in evaluating claims.